Her friend Morticia O’Riordan sounded a slightly calmer note, suggesting that they actually, you know, find out what the hell was going on before getting their collective knickers in a twist. Go, Morticia! But she was soon drowned out:

Niki Laverty was unimpressed, but not quite vocal enough for Tracey’s taste, so she engaged in a bit of cheer-leading, Tracey-style.

How she could imagine that the authorities somehow planned to make Sabine violate her bail conditions is a bit unclear, but Tracey is absolutely certain that they did it. Because: twisted bastards, the lot of them. Uh-huh.

Niki still wasn’t gnashing her teeth and rending her garments quite loudly enough, so Tracey chipped in again, noting that not only is Sabine’s legal team a mess, but “if she dies in there then we all know it was pre planned (sobby face) (sobby face) x”

How did we get from “two weeks in prison” to “dying”? Anyone?

Poor Leanne, lagging along behind, has no idea who and what her friends were talking about, but by gum she’s in there fighting the good fight with Tracey!

Yes, Tracey, it was all planned. Someone went to Sabine’s flat, forced her to make the fateful call, and then immediately called the police to come and pick her up. That’s totally how it works. Yes indeedy!

Also, let’s just hope that Sabine doesn’t take Tracey up on her kind offer to “expose the lot of it” herself. Whatever the charges facing her, Sabine deserves a fair trial, not some shouty fruit-loop with a chip on her shoulder.

More about Sabine’s legal team from Tracey, who apparently knows exactly what sort of legal team it takes to get a person out of harassment charges.

Niki seems a bit confused. She seems to think that Sabine was remanded in custody because she broke the “hear no evil speak no evil” law? Weird.

But Tracey clarifies, with an explanation that’s short on facts or logic and long on dramaz:

She rang a charity for help when that snow was bad and they arrested her for it.. Seriously just couldn’t write the script.. I cant (sic) get this out of my head I’m ready to flip (blubby face) of (sic) anything happens to her and a finger led (sic) upon her, they will be very very sorry indeed.

That’s right, all you evil people out there: Tracey once beat the snot out of Gerry Adams in her front garden, and now he’s terrified of her, so don’t be messing with Tracey!

Danielle, we have some advice for you. Run, don’t walk, away from Tracey. When she says “educate yourself” she means “become a paranoid nut-job like me”. You don’t want that for you or your daughter, believe us.

Claire: Sabine is going to a prison for women, not a concentration camp. They’re not going to be subjecting her to torture; in fact, the last time she was a guest at Bronzefield her main complaint was that the food wasn’t completely to her liking.

Also, where did Claire see that Sabine hadn’t been charged? Is Claire playing with a full deck? We’ll spell it out: she got charged. She got put on bail. Even Belinda seems to understand it; here’s what she said yesterday:

Did she or did she not talk about the case to 3rd parties on the mentioned 2 occasions? Yes she did. They concluded moreover that the breaches were both deliberate and ‘flagrant’ rather than ‘inadvertent’, she was not naïve and knew exactly what she was doing.

Meanwhile, everyone stay out of Tracey’s way. She’s in a punchy mood right now, and you know what happened to Gerry Adams. Ah, we’re back to the legal team thing again. “Plenty of McKenzie friends and Sabine is very capable of representing herself”.

Oh dear. As entertaining as this might be, we really don’t think it’s in the best interests of the defendant. Plus, we don’t think it’s allowed in criminal courts, but otherwise, fab suggestion, Tracey!

In our Blast from the Past Department, we have Snedders popping in to note that “we live in a world run by EVIL”. And wine. Lots of wine. Pour her another, would you lads?

And Mike chips in: “They’re so bloody corrupt….Has she actually been sentenced now?” Do pay attention, Mike. No. She’s been remanded in custody until her next hearing. Would everyone please get a grip?

And bringing up the rear we have Jane, who seems to be in a complete state of confusion, knows nothing about the case, and seems to think that Sabine’s bail breach had something to do with the snow last week.

Aaand here we go: “Morally she has done nothing wrong in a democratic country and so therefore legally they cannot do this as morals stand higher than the legal law as you can be morally right but legally wrong but you cannot be legally right and morally wrong. Basically she stands on the moral high ground so legally they are wrong”.

Did you all get that? For some reason it’s bringing to mind a comment Justin Sanity made yesterday:

Whatever they may or may not call themselves, these Hampstead Hoax mobsters are a UK variant of the American “Sovereign Citizen” attitude to laws and legal judgements: “I don’t have to obey it if I don’t agree with it”.

Some carry this even further, and profess to believe it is their DUTY to break and or disobey laws/legal judgements that they don’t agree with. Right? This attitude even lies at the heart of their obsession with the CONCEPT of “whistle-blowing”…”If I don’t agree that something should be private, I have a right (and a duty) to publicize it as fanatically as I am able to”.

They are themselves the sole rightful “judge” of all these matter, they believe. And so, yes, they are most WILLFULLY belligerent and lawless, and it follows that they must be dealt with HARSHLY by the criminal justice system. They must be stepped on, by legal authorities, private corporations like social media companies and their advertisers, and they must be socially reprimanded in the strongest terms by the law abiding majority in society. There really is no “choice” about this.

Oh yeah, as Eliza mentioned, what is Tracey Morris on about, saying Sabine would be protected by the Good Friday Agreement if she moved to N.I. Northern Ireland would get pretty full with all the people moving there who committed a crime across the water if that was the case!

Misusing ‘broke’ and ‘broken’ is another linguistic bugbear of mine, so can someone please explain to Donkey Tracey that her heart is broken, not broke. To the best of my knowledge it has not run out of money.

Naturally, being elderly must mean that Sabine cannot be “morally wrong” and must be a total innocent unjustly persecuted by some evil conspiracy.

Gordon Kahl, an infamous American “sovereign citizen” and founder of the Texas posse comitatus, was a senior citizen when he murdered US Marshals in a gunfight…

“In 1967, Kahl wrote a letter to the Internal Revenue Service…stating that he would no longer pay taxes to the, in his words, “Synagogue of Satan under the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto.”
On November 16, 1976, Kahl was charged with willful failure to file Federal income tax returns for the years 1973 and 1974, under 26 U.S.C. § 7203. He was found guilty, and was sentenced to two years in prison and a fine of $2,000. Kahl served eight months in prison in 1977. One year of the sentence was suspended, as was the fine, and the court placed Kahl on probation for five years.
Following his parole from prison, Kahl became active in the township movement, an early version of the sovereign citizen movement belief which later became well-known because of the Montana Freemen standoff. This movement sought to form parallel courts and governments purportedly based on English common law, and to withdraw recognition of the U.S. federal government.
On February 13, 1983, U.S. Marshals attempted to arrest Kahl as he was leaving a meeting of township supporters in Medina, North Dakota, for violating his parole. In the car with Kahl were his wife Joan, his son Yorivon, and three others who had been at the meeting. According to Scott Faul’s testimony, both Gordon Kahl and Yorivon Kahl were armed with Ruger Mini-14 rifles. The conflict began when federal marshals created a road block a few miles north of Medina. When the Kahl party met the marshals at the roadblock, a short but intense firefight erupted. The gun battle left US Marshals Kenneth Muir and Robert Cheshire dead, and US Marshal Jim Hopson and Medina Police Department officers Bradley Kapp and Steve Schnabel injured. Yorie Kahl was also wounded during the firefight. The Kahl party fired over a dozen rounds during the gunfight, while the marshals and officers only fired 8. Only three lawmen fired their weapons during the confrontation, and only one, US Marshal Carl Wigglesworth, escaped the gunfight unharmed”.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Kahl

It has been suggested, that Marshals were hesitant to fire on Kahl and his murderous clan, because Kahl and his wife were “just an old man & woman”.

Although, having been a whistleblower myself, in a company I worked for which was damaging its employees’ health, I would just remind y’all that where the facts whistled are true it is a fine thing, though very often it results in the destruction of the whistleblower. These guys promoting imaginary happenings are not whistleblowers but mentally ill fantasists. Their followers are strikingly ill -educated, which of course is helpful if one aim is to extract cash from the credulous.

These people who keep yelling that Sabine cannot commit crime due to her advancing age are the same people who’ve posted God knows how many rants about Cliff Richard, Greville Janner, Jimmy Savile and Lord McAlpine, right?

If Sabine’s legal team have any sense they will say nothing to Tracey and pals before the trial. If they tell them anything it should be just “shut your gobs until the trial”. Not that the Hoaxers are any good at taking sensible advice; tell them not to do something and they do it. If this blog was to advise them not to stick their heads out of the window of a moving train there would be carnage.

Sitting from the box seats in the theatre adaption of Sabine the Martyr.

When you are lonely and sad, like Sabine, with only friends like Jake Clarke and Belinda McKenzie whispering naughty temptations in your ear, it is easy to get lost in a fantasy and delusion. Sabine is in a tar pit, her future is bleak because its a disaster she cannot survive from. Rupert Quaintance suffered disaster when he played into the hoax, he is young and healthy enough to recover, but Sabine is aged 70+, failing health, low on money, she is totally screwed. Sabine is at the twilight of her life when mental and physical decline from old age will come on rapidly, it is a situation why little old ladies should avoid dangerous risks with their money, liberty and health that younger people like Jake Clarke can afford to take.

I already know what the future holds for Sabine McNeill. To her so-called friends like Belinda McKenzie and Jake Clarke, know that you have destroyed her. I have no sympathy or pity for Sabine, her life is near its end, but she has ruined the lives of two children whose lives are only beginning.

However, lets look at the bright side of life, Sabine has obtained a free bed and meals, and has an alternative set of people to talk to rather than only hoax fantasists.

Very good point.
Honestly some of the comments on Tracey’s timeline are beyond dumb. As always I ask the same old question: this mob in the end are so thick I can never work out how they make it out their front door and to the bus-stop and through a day without stumbling over their own feet.

I think Jane Hardy has the makings of a brilliant comedian albeit accidentally. I’m going to learn off her less a tongue-twister, more a mind-twister quote so I can throw it into conversations to see people’s reactions.

“Morally she has done nothing wrong in a democratic country and so therefore legally they cannot do this as morals stand higher than the legal law as you can be morally right but legally wrong but you cannot be legally right and morally wrong. Basically she stands on the moral high ground so legally they are wrong”.

And that is why these faux whistle-blowers are so dangerous. It was put to me many years ago that even a successful whistle-blower would never to work in their again.

I’m not going to give away detail, but I was once contacted by a social worker who was prepared to tell me off the record what had gone seriously wrong in a child death case (I had small role in the scrutiny process at the time). All that she told me was credible and, more importantly, aligned with the facts I was independently and confidentially aware off. It was a tragic case of incompetence. managemental terror and passing the buck to hit targets. However, she couldn’t bring herself to go on the record because she would lose her job, a job she loved doing and I couldn’t persuade anyone else in her department to talk. Unlike the Hamstead hoax madhouse, in the real world you need evidence. It meant I could do nothing but watch the people in positions of responsibility avoid sanction.

Then you have these fantasists who turn whistleblowing into a Munchausen psycho-drama, not backed by any facts or logic, who have turned the word into meaning disgruntled axe grinding lunatic in the eyes of the general public. They are a menace to public safety and should be dealt with as such.

Agreed- Youtube has a social obligation and that includes removing scam artists and con merchants like you who defraud gullible people with your phony ‘free energy’ machine and those idiotic stones or whatever the fuck they are that supposedly dispel “chem trails”.
God I hate cheap crooks like Naima Dawn Feagin.

It’s an education to click on the “friends” links of all this crew. They all suffer (seriously) from mental health issues and have all bought into the “sovereign citizen” scam in varying degrees. Most sort of make up their own version, cherry picking the bits they like yet they still buy into the structured society we all live in- accessing social security, most living in council housing, using the trains and taxpayer funded buses etc etc and so on.

I often wonder what it is that attracts them all to each other. None of them make any sense yet somehow their mental health issues have a way of zoning in on each other and recognising a soul mate ie: another nutter.

Of course this post could be tempered by the fact I came across a video on one such “friend”, of (Sir) John Patterson in yet another court corridor incomprehensibly rambling on about some obscure court matter and moaning that his recording devices had been confiscated but help was at hand as he has expert legal advice arriving shortly in the form : Edward Ellis Equity Layer.

I started looking at the links, apparently currently if it was a rape, he could be charged and if found guilty would face up to fifteen years, but there currently doesnt seem to be an age of consent where both parties are consenting which would bring serious charges- which is where the problem in this case seems to be
From my interpretation from online articles (admittedly mostly non legal reports rather than trying to read french law archives- my french is woefull) in this case the child had willingly accompanied him knowing what they were to about to do , which as French law currently doesnt have an age of consent, severely restricted the possible range of charges that could be brought- the severest would be sexual abuse of a minor with a maximum of 5 years.
It seems the French law doesnt currently have the equivalent of statutory rape, so if the child expresses consent, then the more severe penalties simply arent available if he had forced her
(In the case of rape charges being laid, the prosecution must prove that the child was unwilling and had been forced, as soon as the child expressed her consent then those charges are much harder if not impossible to prove)
This is the situation currently as I understand it

“The age of consent in France is 15, as specified by Article 227-25 of the Penal Code, which reads: ‘The fact of the commission without violence, constraint, threat or surprise of a sexual offence by an adult on the person of a minor under fifteen years of age is punished by five years’ imprisonment and a fine of €75,000.’

Article 227-22 prohibits the ‘organisation by an adult of meetings involving indecent exposure or sexual relations knowing that minors are present or participating’. (Minors refers to under 18s; the text of the article can be subject to interpretation).

Article 227-22-1 prohibits the ‘soliciting of a minor under the age of fifteen, or a person pretending to be such minor, for sexual purposes through the use of a computer system’.

Article 227-27 prohibits sexual relations with minors over age 15 (aged 15, 16 or 17) ‘1 where they are committed by an ascendant or by any other person having a legal or factual authority over the victim; 2 where they are committed by a person abusing the authority conferred by his functions.'”

You are correct in that (I reread my post afterwards and wished for an edit button) but there is nothing equivalent to our ‘stat rape’- where any sexual relations with a minor is considered nonconsenual- even if the child expresses consent which apprently the french dont have an equivalent to

In the cases that brought about this issue, apparently the prosecution had tried for the more severe rape charges (up to 15 years) but failed to convince that it was a rape as the child had expressed consent, basically letting the prosecution fail. I dont know if they have the equivalent of double jeopardy, but if they have, then once they failed, that would be the end of it- they dont get to do a ‘do over’ with the lesser charges (one of the reasons I have seen accused charged with what appears at first glance to be the same thing in different terms repeated multiple times example might be a person charged with assault, assault with menaces, assault with weapon all listed so that if the more serious charge is defeated, at least the lesser might still get a guilty verdict)
Once found not guilty of the more serious charge for whatever, they cant go back and try again with the lesser charge in a new trial however- something that the french prosecution either isnt allowed to do or failed to do in this case apparently- they went for the more serious charge and failed to prove it

Yes, it’s all quite confusing and the reporting doesn’t really help to clarify it much.
My hope is, they will change their laws to specify that persons under the age of 15 will be presumed incapable of genuine consent with persons over the age of 18. That’s what I’d like to see.

True Justin, although I also feel that many existing laws concerning underage children need revision, or indeed in some cases scrapping and starting again from scratch. Before anyone gets too upset with that statement, I am referring to cases where two consenting but both underage, have both ended up on the sexual offender lists as both victims and perpetrators- often without their knowledge, often for something as trivial as ‘sexting’ each other or taking a consensual video of themselves (ending up with being charged with production and distribution of child pornography)

dammit wordpress ate my post again….
I agree Justin, but I feel that the law needs to be changed in one respect, the automatic listing of all offenders on sex offender lists. Before anyone gets too upset at this statement, I am referring to cases where underage partners can both end up as being listed for life as sex offenders-in the bizarre case of being both the victim and the offender, often for something as simple as ‘sexting’ or taking consensual video or photos- and being charged with production of child pornography

Kudos to genuine whistleblowers indeed. Whether people agree with what Edward Snowden did or not is their own decision. Personally i think he was very brave in his actions. He saw things that he thought was wrong and reported what he knew even with the knowledge that his life would never be the same again. I don’t know if i could show the same courage as he did.

Interesting- that missing post has reappeared again…
For your info EC, when it disappeared, I refreshed and cleared browser cache, still didnt appear on refresh, even though Arthur Pints 3 posts had appeared on the list of new posts, I had time to rewrite the second one, still hadnt appeared, then after about 4 or 5 refreshes over a few minutes, it suddenly popped up in the list after his fourth post appeared.

I am guilty too. It’s colloquialism I’m afraid, well in my case anyway. I do have a laugh when someone looks at me strangely when I say words like that though. They’re passed down from my Grandmother & mother. 😂

I think the key word she uses in the video is “shame”. In other words, the lady put Angela in her place, in public, and Angela didn’t like it.

Did you notice that at the end, Angela insinuates that the carer might be defrauding her mother, but then says oh, but the home help is wonderful…?

Not to mention the multiple times she claims that her sisters are “financially abusing” their mother, or just waiting for their parents to die so they can get their hands on the inheritance. Angela is just a foul individual. End of.

Then I regret to inform you, EC, I can’t do my nightshift, carrying out my remote targeting on people’s plumbing tonight, unless you can find me a spare chair of course.
What exactly did Chester say he was doing online anyway?